Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

age

238

51.30 ± 13.00 (23 - 75)

50.77 ± 13.33 (23 - 75)

51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)

0.534

gender

238

0.316

f

194 (82%)

94 (79%)

100 (84%)

m

44 (18%)

25 (21%)

19 (16%)

occupation

238

day_training

6 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

full_time

26 (11%)

13 (11%)

13 (11%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (13%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.5%)

part_time

42 (18%)

23 (19%)

19 (16%)

retired

57 (24%)

26 (22%)

31 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

4 (3.4%)

shelter

4 (1.7%)

4 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

t_and_e

4 (1.7%)

3 (2.5%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

53 (22%)

28 (24%)

25 (21%)

marital

238

0.875

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

divore

26 (11%)

14 (12%)

12 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

married

71 (30%)

33 (28%)

38 (32%)

none

113 (47%)

58 (49%)

55 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.3%)

2 (1.7%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (8.0%)

10 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

edu

238

0.622

bachelor

48 (20%)

20 (17%)

28 (24%)

diploma

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

hd_ad

6 (2.5%)

4 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

16 (6.7%)

9 (7.6%)

7 (5.9%)

primary

20 (8.4%)

9 (7.6%)

11 (9.2%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (10%)

secondary_4_5

65 (27%)

30 (25%)

35 (29%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.5%)

6 (5.0%)

7 (5.9%)

fam_income

238

10001_12000

8 (3.4%)

2 (1.7%)

6 (5.0%)

12001_14000

11 (4.6%)

4 (3.4%)

7 (5.9%)

14001_16000

12 (5.0%)

4 (3.4%)

8 (6.7%)

16001_18000

5 (2.1%)

3 (2.5%)

2 (1.7%)

18001_20000

10 (4.2%)

7 (5.9%)

3 (2.5%)

20001_above

40 (17%)

24 (20%)

16 (13%)

2001_4000

35 (15%)

17 (14%)

18 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (13%)

14 (12%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

21 (8.8%)

12 (10%)

9 (7.6%)

8001_10000

20 (8.4%)

11 (9.2%)

9 (7.6%)

below_2000

45 (19%)

21 (18%)

24 (20%)

medication

238

213 (89%)

106 (89%)

107 (90%)

0.833

onset_duration

238

15.16 ± 10.94 (0 - 63)

14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)

15.48 ± 10.60 (0 - 63)

0.655

onset_age

238

36.14 ± 14.78 (-18 - 72)

35.93 ± 13.78 (10 - 72)

36.35 ± 15.76 (-18 - 68)

0.830

diagnosis_schizophrenia

238

48 (20%)

23 (19%)

25 (21%)

0.747

diagnosis_delusional

238

13 (5.5%)

7 (5.9%)

6 (5.0%)

0.775

diagnosis_schizoaffective

238

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

238

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

238

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

238

no

238 (100%)

119 (100%)

119 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

238

129 (54%)

64 (54%)

65 (55%)

0.896

diagnosis_bipolar

238

23 (9.7%)

9 (7.6%)

14 (12%)

0.273

diagnosis_anxiety

238

82 (34%)

44 (37%)

38 (32%)

0.413

diagnosis_phobia

238

9 (3.8%)

3 (2.5%)

6 (5.0%)

0.499

diagnosis_personality_disorders

238

3 (1.3%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.5%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

238

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

238

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (10%)

0.322

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2381

control, N = 1191

treatment, N = 1191

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

238

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.456

recovery_stage_b

238

17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)

18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)

17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.677

ras_confidence

238

29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)

29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)

30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)

0.671

ras_willingness

238

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)

0.763

ras_goal

238

17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

0.415

ras_reliance

238

13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)

0.636

ras_domination

238

9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

0.211

symptom

238

30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)

31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)

30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)

0.337

slof_work

238

22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)

22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)

22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)

0.748

slof_relationship

238

25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)

24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)

25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)

0.286

satisfaction

238

20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)

0.210

mhc_emotional

238

10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)

0.705

mhc_social

238

15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)

15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)

15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)

0.974

mhc_psychological

238

21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)

21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)

0.948

resilisnce

238

16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

238

13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)

0.050

els_value_living

238

17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)

17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.370

els_life_fulfill

238

12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

0.128

els

238

29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)

30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)

0.186

social_connect

238

27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)

27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)

26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)

0.382

shs_agency

238

14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

0.149

shs_pathway

238

15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)

15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)

0.080

shs

238

30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)

29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)

0.098

esteem

238

12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)

0.701

mlq_search

238

14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)

14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

238

13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)

0.496

mlq

238

28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)

27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)

28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)

0.278

empower

238

19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)

19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)

0.377

ismi_resistance

238

14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

0.844

ismi_discrimation

238

11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)

0.966

sss_affective

238

10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.727

sss_behavior

238

10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.759

sss_cognitive

238

8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.514

sss

238

29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)

29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)

0.804

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.111

2.98, 3.42

group

control

treatment

-0.118

0.157

-0.426, 0.190

0.454

time_point

1st

2nd

0.039

0.145

-0.245, 0.323

0.789

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.305

0.208

-0.104, 0.713

0.145

Pseudo R square

0.009

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.273

17.5, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.160

0.386

-0.916, 0.597

0.679

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.209

0.275

-0.747, 0.330

0.449

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.862

0.396

0.086, 1.64

0.031

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.523

28.8, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.311

0.739

-1.14, 1.76

0.674

time_point

1st

2nd

0.706

0.467

-0.210, 1.62

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.27

0.674

-0.056, 2.59

0.062

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.194

11.2, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.084

0.274

-0.453, 0.621

0.759

time_point

1st

2nd

0.075

0.203

-0.324, 0.474

0.714

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.305

0.293

-0.270, 0.879

0.300

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.305

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.353

0.431

-0.493, 1.20

0.414

time_point

1st

2nd

0.314

0.296

-0.266, 0.895

0.290

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.543

0.427

-0.293, 1.38

0.205

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.268

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.176

0.379

-0.567, 0.920

0.642

time_point

1st

2nd

0.261

0.248

-0.225, 0.747

0.293

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.558

0.357

-0.143, 1.26

0.121

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.222

9.58, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.395

0.315

-1.01, 0.222

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.001

0.247

-0.484, 0.486

0.996

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.858

0.356

0.160, 1.56

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.4

0.911

29.6, 33.1

group

control

treatment

-1.24

1.288

-3.77, 1.28

0.335

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.06

0.774

-2.57, 0.461

0.174

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.324

1.116

-2.51, 1.86

0.772

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.420

21.4, 23.1

group

control

treatment

-0.193

0.593

-1.36, 0.970

0.745

time_point

1st

2nd

0.257

0.399

-0.524, 1.04

0.520

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.474

0.575

-0.652, 1.60

0.411

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.7

0.525

23.7, 25.7

group

control

treatment

0.798

0.743

-0.658, 2.25

0.284

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.088

0.496

-1.06, 0.884

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.767

0.715

-0.635, 2.17

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.010

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.663

18.6, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.937

-0.660, 3.01

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.871

0.600

-0.305, 2.05

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.313

0.865

-1.38, 2.01

0.718

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.343

10.1, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.185

0.485

-0.766, 1.14

0.704

time_point

1st

2nd

0.381

0.288

-0.184, 0.946

0.188

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.116

0.416

-0.931, 0.699

0.780

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.561

14.2, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.025

0.793

-1.58, 1.53

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

0.652

0.490

-0.309, 1.61

0.186

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.001

0.707

-1.39, 1.39

0.999

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.648

20.6, 23.1

group

control

treatment

0.059

0.916

-1.74, 1.86

0.949

time_point

1st

2nd

0.993

0.570

-0.124, 2.11

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.281

0.822

-1.89, 1.33

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.405

15.5, 17.1

group

control

treatment

0.723

0.573

-0.399, 1.84

0.208

time_point

1st

2nd

0.748

0.397

-0.031, 1.53

0.062

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.750

0.573

-0.373, 1.87

0.192

Pseudo R square

0.028

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.260

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.706

0.368

-0.015, 1.43

0.056

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.179

0.254

-0.676, 0.319

0.482

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.502

0.366

-0.215, 1.22

0.172

Pseudo R square

0.026

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.293

16.3, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.370

0.414

-0.442, 1.18

0.373

time_point

1st

2nd

0.333

0.280

-0.216, 0.881

0.236

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.331

0.403

-0.459, 1.12

0.413

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.306

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.664

0.433

-0.184, 1.51

0.126

time_point

1st

2nd

0.244

0.272

-0.290, 0.778

0.373

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.312

0.393

-0.458, 1.08

0.429

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.4

0.555

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

1.03

0.785

-0.504, 2.57

0.189

time_point

1st

2nd

0.601

0.476

-0.333, 1.53

0.209

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.617

0.687

-0.730, 1.96

0.371

Pseudo R square

0.016

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

0.847

25.9, 29.2

group

control

treatment

-1.03

1.197

-3.38, 1.31

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.228

0.708

-1.62, 1.16

0.748

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.76

1.022

-4.77, -0.761

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.466

13.1, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.941

0.659

-0.350, 2.23

0.154

time_point

1st

2nd

0.376

0.388

-0.385, 1.14

0.334

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.426

0.559

-0.670, 1.52

0.447

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.377

14.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.958

0.533

-0.087, 2.00

0.074

time_point

1st

2nd

0.635

0.344

-0.040, 1.31

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.182

0.497

-0.791, 1.16

0.714

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.804

27.8, 31.0

group

control

treatment

1.90

1.136

-0.328, 4.13

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

1.02

0.670

-0.295, 2.33

0.131

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.593

0.966

-1.30, 2.49

0.541

Pseudo R square

0.019

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.146

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.084

0.207

-0.490, 0.322

0.685

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.132

0.184

-0.492, 0.228

0.474

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.089

0.264

-0.428, 0.607

0.736

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.317

13.9, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.605

0.448

-0.274, 1.48

0.178

time_point

1st

2nd

0.844

0.347

0.164, 1.52

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.750

0.500

-1.73, 0.230

0.136

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.387

12.6, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.378

0.547

-0.695, 1.45

0.490

time_point

1st

2nd

0.871

0.394

0.098, 1.64

0.029

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.073

0.568

-1.19, 1.04

0.898

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.638

26.5, 29.0

group

control

treatment

0.983

0.903

-0.786, 2.75

0.277

time_point

1st

2nd

1.72

0.660

0.425, 3.01

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.820

0.952

-2.68, 1.05

0.390

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.416

18.2, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.513

0.588

-0.639, 1.66

0.384

time_point

1st

2nd

0.898

0.387

0.140, 1.66

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.268

0.557

-1.36, 0.825

0.632

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.237

14.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.067

0.335

-0.723, 0.588

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

0.272

0.276

-0.269, 0.813

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.607

0.398

-0.172, 1.39

0.129

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.282

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.017

0.399

-0.800, 0.766

0.966

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.448

0.323

-1.08, 0.184

0.167

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.641

0.465

-1.55, 0.269

0.169

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.339

9.74, 11.1

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.480

-0.772, 1.11

0.726

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.418

0.309

-1.02, 0.187

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.686

0.445

-1.56, 0.187

0.125

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.345

9.54, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.151

0.488

-1.11, 0.805

0.757

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.690

0.306

-1.29, -0.090

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.074

0.441

-0.938, 0.790

0.867

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.74

0.344

8.07, 9.41

group

control

treatment

0.328

0.487

-0.626, 1.28

0.501

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.537

0.309

-1.14, 0.068

0.084

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.577

0.445

-1.45, 0.296

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

29.4

0.969

27.5, 31.3

group

control

treatment

0.345

1.371

-2.34, 3.03

0.802

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.61

0.790

-3.16, -0.064

0.043

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.30

1.139

-3.53, 0.938

0.257

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(376) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(376) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(376) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71], t(376) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(376) = 66.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.33], t(376) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.09, 1.64], t(376) = 2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(376) = 57.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(376) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.62], t(376) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.59], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-9.81e-03, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(376) = 59.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(376) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.88], t(376) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.82], t(376) = 56.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.89], t(376) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.38], t(376) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(376) = 49.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(376) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.75], t(376) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.26], t(376) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(376) = 45.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(376) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.49], t(376) = 4.59e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 4.68e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.16, 1.56], t(376) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.58, 33.15], t(376) = 34.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(376) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.46], t(376) = -1.36, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.51, 1.86], t(376) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(376) = 53.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(376) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.04], t(376) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.60], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(376) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.25], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.88], t(376) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.17], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(376) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.05], t(376) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.01], t(376) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(376) = 31.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(376) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.95], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.70], t(376) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.25, 16.44], t(376) = 27.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(376) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.61], t(376) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.99e-04, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.39], t(376) = -1.41e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -1.67e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(376) = 33.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(376) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.45e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.11], t(376) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.33], t(376) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(376) = 40.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.53], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-6.90e-03, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.87], t(376) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(376) = 50.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(376) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.32], t(376) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.22], t(376) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(376) = 57.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(376) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.12], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(376) = 40.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.78], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.08], t(376) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.47], t(376) = 52.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.57], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.96], t(376) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(376) = 32.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.16], t(376) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.76, 95% CI [-4.77, -0.76], t(376) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(376) = 30.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(376) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.14], t(376) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.52], t(376) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(376) = 40.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(376) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.31], t(376) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-9.56e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.16], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(376) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(376) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.33], t(376) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.49], t(376) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(376) = 87.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23], t(376) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61], t(376) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(376) = 45.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(376) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.16, 1.52], t(376) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.23], t(376) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(376) = 34.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(376) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.10, 1.64], t(376) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.04], t(376) = -0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(376) = 43.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(376) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [0.42, 3.01], t(376) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.06, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.05], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(376) = 45.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(376) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.14, 1.66], t(376) = 2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.82], t(376) = -0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(376) = 60.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(376) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.81], t(376) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.39], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(376) = 41.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(376) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.18], t(376) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.27], t(376) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(376) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(376) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.19], t(376) = -1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.19], t(376) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(376) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(376) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(376) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.79], t(376) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.07, 9.41], t(376) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(376) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.07], t(376) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.30], t(376) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(376) = 30.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(376) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.16, -0.06], t(376) = -2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -6.07e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.94], t(376) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,213.407

1,225.244

-603.704

1,207.407

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,214.103

1,237.776

-601.052

1,202.103

5.304

3

0.151

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,843.055

1,854.891

-918.528

1,837.055

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,843.157

1,866.830

-915.579

1,831.157

5.898

3

0.117

ras_confidence

null

3

2,322.782

2,334.619

-1,158.391

2,316.782

ras_confidence

random

6

2,309.978

2,333.651

-1,148.989

2,297.978

18.804

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,589.648

1,601.484

-791.824

1,583.648

ras_willingness

random

6

1,591.777

1,615.450

-789.888

1,579.777

3.871

3

0.276

ras_goal

null

3

1,923.727

1,935.564

-958.864

1,917.727

ras_goal

random

6

1,919.400

1,943.072

-953.700

1,907.400

10.328

3

0.016

ras_reliance

null

3

1,814.557

1,826.393

-904.279

1,808.557

ras_reliance

random

6

1,808.667

1,832.340

-898.334

1,796.667

11.890

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

1,716.142

1,727.979

-855.071

1,710.142

ras_domination

random

6

1,710.934

1,734.606

-849.467

1,698.934

11.209

3

0.011

symptom

null

3

2,721.059

2,732.896

-1,357.530

2,715.059

symptom

random

6

2,721.123

2,744.795

-1,354.561

2,709.123

5.937

3

0.115

slof_work

null

3

2,155.193

2,167.029

-1,074.597

2,149.193

slof_work

random

6

2,157.639

2,181.311

-1,072.819

2,145.639

3.554

3

0.314

slof_relationship

null

3

2,326.034

2,337.870

-1,160.017

2,320.034

slof_relationship

random

6

2,328.089

2,351.762

-1,158.045

2,316.089

3.944

3

0.268

satisfaction

null

3

2,496.068

2,507.905

-1,245.034

2,490.068

satisfaction

random

6

2,494.435

2,518.107

-1,241.217

2,482.435

7.634

3

0.054

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,969.027

1,980.864

-981.514

1,963.027

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,972.407

1,996.080

-980.204

1,960.407

2.620

3

0.454

mhc_social

null

3

2,355.442

2,367.279

-1,174.721

2,349.442

mhc_social

random

6

2,358.063

2,381.735

-1,173.031

2,346.063

3.380

3

0.337

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,468.416

2,480.252

-1,231.208

2,462.416

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,469.974

2,493.646

-1,228.987

2,457.974

4.442

3

0.218

resilisnce

null

3

2,151.576

2,163.412

-1,072.788

2,145.576

resilisnce

random

6

2,138.517

2,162.190

-1,063.259

2,126.517

19.059

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,801.464

1,813.300

-897.732

1,795.464

social_provision

random

6

1,799.316

1,822.989

-893.658

1,787.316

8.148

3

0.043

els_value_living

null

3

1,886.517

1,898.353

-940.258

1,880.517

els_value_living

random

6

1,884.541

1,908.214

-936.271

1,872.541

7.976

3

0.047

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,901.632

1,913.468

-947.816

1,895.632

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,899.678

1,923.350

-943.839

1,887.678

7.954

3

0.047

els

null

3

2,349.275

2,361.111

-1,171.637

2,343.275

els

random

6

2,345.163

2,368.836

-1,166.582

2,333.163

10.111

3

0.018

social_connect

null

3

2,673.883

2,685.719

-1,333.941

2,667.883

social_connect

random

6

2,661.197

2,684.870

-1,324.598

2,649.197

18.686

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,205.224

2,217.060

-1,099.612

2,199.224

shs_agency

random

6

2,203.563

2,227.236

-1,095.782

2,191.563

7.661

3

0.054

shs_pathway

null

3

2,072.510

2,084.347

-1,033.255

2,066.510

shs_pathway

random

6

2,066.146

2,089.818

-1,027.073

2,054.146

12.365

3

0.006

shs

null

3

2,625.529

2,637.365

-1,309.764

2,619.529

shs

random

6

2,620.454

2,644.126

-1,304.227

2,608.454

11.075

3

0.011

esteem

null

3

1,411.775

1,423.612

-702.888

1,405.775

esteem

random

6

1,417.131

1,440.804

-702.566

1,405.131

0.644

3

0.886

mlq_search

null

3

1,978.582

1,990.418

-986.291

1,972.582

mlq_search

random

6

1,977.967

2,001.640

-982.984

1,965.967

6.615

3

0.085

mlq_presence

null

3

2,116.237

2,128.073

-1,055.118

2,110.237

mlq_presence

random

6

2,113.358

2,137.030

-1,050.679

2,101.358

8.879

3

0.031

mlq

null

3

2,502.245

2,514.081

-1,248.122

2,496.245

mlq

random

6

2,499.287

2,522.960

-1,243.644

2,487.287

8.958

3

0.030

empower

null

3

2,147.295

2,159.131

-1,070.647

2,141.295

empower

random

6

2,145.050

2,168.723

-1,066.525

2,133.050

8.244

3

0.041

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,773.399

1,785.236

-883.700

1,767.399

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,768.979

1,792.652

-878.490

1,756.979

10.420

3

0.015

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,906.031

1,917.868

-950.016

1,900.031

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,899.425

1,923.097

-943.712

1,887.425

12.607

3

0.006

sss_affective

null

3

1,991.993

2,003.829

-992.996

1,985.993

sss_affective

random

6

1,984.510

2,008.183

-986.255

1,972.510

13.483

3

0.004

sss_behavior

null

3

1,995.512

2,007.348

-994.756

1,989.512

sss_behavior

random

6

1,990.642

2,014.315

-989.321

1,978.642

10.870

3

0.012

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,000.552

2,012.388

-997.276

1,994.552

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,991.587

2,015.259

-989.793

1,979.587

14.965

3

0.002

sss

null

3

2,768.111

2,779.948

-1,381.056

2,762.111

sss

random

6

2,757.782

2,781.454

-1,372.891

2,745.782

16.330

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

119

3.20 ± 1.21

119

3.08 ± 1.21

0.454

0.125

recovery_stage_a

2nd

75

3.24 ± 1.18

-0.041

69

3.43 ± 1.17

-0.365

0.340

-0.199

recovery_stage_b

1st

119

18.01 ± 2.98

119

17.85 ± 2.98

0.679

0.092

recovery_stage_b

2nd

75

17.80 ± 2.73

0.120

69

18.50 ± 2.69

-0.376

0.121

-0.404

ras_confidence

1st

119

29.82 ± 5.70

119

30.13 ± 5.70

0.674

-0.106

ras_confidence

2nd

75

30.52 ± 5.10

-0.241

69

32.10 ± 5.02

-0.672

0.063

-0.537

ras_willingness

1st

119

11.61 ± 2.11

119

11.70 ± 2.11

0.759

-0.065

ras_willingness

2nd

75

11.69 ± 1.96

-0.058

69

12.08 ± 1.93

-0.294

0.231

-0.301

ras_goal

1st

119

17.23 ± 3.33

119

17.58 ± 3.33

0.414

-0.189

ras_goal

2nd

75

17.54 ± 3.03

-0.168

69

18.44 ± 2.98

-0.459

0.075

-0.480

ras_reliance

1st

119

13.16 ± 2.92

119

13.34 ± 2.92

0.642

-0.113

ras_reliance

2nd

75

13.42 ± 2.64

-0.168

69

14.16 ± 2.59

-0.525

0.093

-0.471

ras_domination

1st

119

10.02 ± 2.43

119

9.62 ± 2.43

0.210

0.250

ras_domination

2nd

75

10.02 ± 2.27

-0.001

69

10.48 ± 2.25

-0.545

0.220

-0.294

symptom

1st

119

31.36 ± 9.94

119

30.12 ± 9.94

0.335

0.257

symptom

2nd

75

30.31 ± 8.81

0.218

69

28.74 ± 8.64

0.285

0.282

0.323

slof_work

1st

119

22.27 ± 4.58

119

22.08 ± 4.58

0.745

0.077

slof_work

2nd

75

22.53 ± 4.15

-0.102

69

22.81 ± 4.08

-0.291

0.683

-0.112

slof_relationship

1st

119

24.68 ± 5.73

119

25.48 ± 5.73

0.284

-0.255

slof_relationship

2nd

75

24.59 ± 5.19

0.028

69

26.16 ± 5.11

-0.217

0.069

-0.501

satisfaction

1st

119

19.90 ± 7.23

119

21.08 ± 7.23

0.210

-0.312

satisfaction

2nd

75

20.77 ± 6.49

-0.231

69

22.26 ± 6.38

-0.314

0.166

-0.395

mhc_emotional

1st

119

10.77 ± 3.74

119

10.96 ± 3.74

0.704

-0.102

mhc_emotional

2nd

75

11.15 ± 3.31

-0.211

69

11.22 ± 3.25

-0.147

0.900

-0.038

mhc_social

1st

119

15.34 ± 6.12

119

15.32 ± 6.12

0.975

0.008

mhc_social

2nd

75

16.00 ± 5.45

-0.212

69

15.97 ± 5.36

-0.212

0.977

0.009

mhc_psychological

1st

119

21.84 ± 7.07

119

21.90 ± 7.07

0.949

-0.016

mhc_psychological

2nd

75

22.83 ± 6.31

-0.278

69

22.61 ± 6.20

-0.199

0.832

0.062

resilisnce

1st

119

16.29 ± 4.42

119

17.02 ± 4.42

0.208

-0.288

resilisnce

2nd

75

17.04 ± 4.03

-0.298

69

18.51 ± 3.97

-0.597

0.028

-0.587

social_provision

1st

119

13.24 ± 2.84

119

13.95 ± 2.84

0.056

-0.441

social_provision

2nd

75

13.06 ± 2.59

0.112

69

14.27 ± 2.55

-0.202

0.005

-0.754

els_value_living

1st

119

16.88 ± 3.20

119

17.25 ± 3.20

0.373

-0.210

els_value_living

2nd

75

17.21 ± 2.90

-0.189

69

17.92 ± 2.86

-0.376

0.145

-0.397

els_life_fulfill

1st

119

12.50 ± 3.34

119

13.17 ± 3.34

0.126

-0.388

els_life_fulfill

2nd

75

12.75 ± 2.98

-0.142

69

13.72 ± 2.93

-0.325

0.049

-0.570

els

1st

119

29.39 ± 6.05

119

30.42 ± 6.05

0.189

-0.346

els

2nd

75

29.99 ± 5.38

-0.201

69

31.64 ± 5.28

-0.408

0.064

-0.553

social_connect

1st

119

27.56 ± 9.23

119

26.53 ± 9.23

0.389

0.233

social_connect

2nd

75

27.33 ± 8.16

0.051

69

23.54 ± 8.01

0.675

0.005

0.857

shs_agency

1st

119

13.97 ± 5.08

119

14.92 ± 5.08

0.154

-0.388

shs_agency

2nd

75

14.35 ± 4.49

-0.155

69

15.72 ± 4.40

-0.331

0.066

-0.564

shs_pathway

1st

119

15.43 ± 4.11

119

16.39 ± 4.11

0.074

-0.442

shs_pathway

2nd

75

16.06 ± 3.70

-0.293

69

17.20 ± 3.64

-0.378

0.063

-0.527

shs

1st

119

29.40 ± 8.77

119

31.30 ± 8.77

0.096

-0.453

shs

2nd

75

30.42 ± 7.75

-0.243

69

32.91 ± 7.60

-0.384

0.052

-0.594

esteem

1st

119

12.80 ± 1.60

119

12.71 ± 1.60

0.685

0.071

esteem

2nd

75

12.67 ± 1.54

0.111

69

12.67 ± 1.53

0.036

0.983

-0.005

mlq_search

1st

119

14.49 ± 3.46

119

15.09 ± 3.46

0.178

-0.274

mlq_search

2nd

75

15.33 ± 3.23

-0.382

69

15.19 ± 3.20

-0.043

0.788

0.065

mlq_presence

1st

119

13.31 ± 4.22

119

13.69 ± 4.22

0.490

-0.151

mlq_presence

2nd

75

14.18 ± 3.88

-0.349

69

14.49 ± 3.83

-0.319

0.636

-0.122

mlq

1st

119

27.80 ± 6.96

119

28.78 ± 6.96

0.277

-0.235

mlq

2nd

75

29.52 ± 6.42

-0.411

69

29.68 ± 6.35

-0.215

0.878

-0.039

empower

1st

119

19.00 ± 4.53

119

19.51 ± 4.53

0.384

-0.211

empower

2nd

75

19.90 ± 4.09

-0.369

69

20.14 ± 4.03

-0.259

0.718

-0.101

ismi_resistance

1st

119

14.42 ± 2.58

119

14.35 ± 2.58

0.841

0.038

ismi_resistance

2nd

75

14.69 ± 2.45

-0.154

69

15.23 ± 2.43

-0.497

0.185

-0.305

ismi_discrimation

1st

119

11.76 ± 3.08

119

11.74 ± 3.08

0.966

0.008

ismi_discrimation

2nd

75

11.31 ± 2.91

0.217

69

10.65 ± 2.88

0.528

0.174

0.319

sss_affective

1st

119

10.40 ± 3.70

119

10.57 ± 3.70

0.726

-0.087

sss_affective

2nd

75

9.99 ± 3.32

0.215

69

9.47 ± 3.27

0.569

0.347

0.267

sss_behavior

1st

119

10.22 ± 3.76

119

10.07 ± 3.76

0.757

0.079

sss_behavior

2nd

75

9.53 ± 3.36

0.359

69

9.30 ± 3.31

0.398

0.686

0.117

sss_cognitive

1st

119

8.74 ± 3.75

119

9.07 ± 3.75

0.501

-0.169

sss_cognitive

2nd

75

8.20 ± 3.36

0.277

69

7.95 ± 3.31

0.574

0.654

0.128

sss

1st

119

29.36 ± 10.57

119

29.71 ± 10.57

0.802

-0.070

sss

2nd

75

27.75 ± 9.31

0.327

69

26.80 ± 9.12

0.589

0.537

0.193

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(339.42) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(377.88) = 0.95, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.57)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(291.91) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.43) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.59)

ras_confidence

1st

t(278.42) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

2st

t(359.14) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.24)

ras_willingness

1st

t(297.96) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)

2st

t(372.16) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.03)

ras_goal

1st

t(287.29) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.67) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.88)

ras_reliance

1st

t(281.83) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.44) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.59)

ras_domination

1st

t(307.02) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(374.86) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.21)

symptom

1st

t(273.63) = -0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)

2st

t(353.49) = -1.08, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.29)

slof_work

1st

t(284.80) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.97)

2st

t(364.88) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.63)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.13) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.36) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.25)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.58) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(360.33) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.60)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.66) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(352.18) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.14)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.25) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(356.74) = -0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.76) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)

2st

t(357.33) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.83)

resilisnce

1st

t(288.75) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)

2st

t(367.61) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.78)

social_provision

1st

t(287.94) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(367.10) = 2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.05)

els_value_living

1st

t(285.37) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.31) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(278.00) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(358.70) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.95)

els

1st

t(274.59) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(354.73) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.40)

social_connect

1st

t(272.37) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(351.77) = -2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-6.45 to -1.15)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.95) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.24)

2st

t(351.19) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.83)

shs_pathway

1st

t(280.49) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.21) = 1.86, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(272.06) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(351.34) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.01)

esteem

1st

t(330.66) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(377.62) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.38) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(374.22) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st

t(293.57) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)

2st

t(370.27) = 0.47, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.57)

mlq

1st

t(295.74) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(371.26) = 0.15, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.26)

empower

1st

t(282.45) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)

2st

t(362.97) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.58)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(315.84) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)

2st

t(376.41) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.34)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.75) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(375.80) = -1.36, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(280.20) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)

2st

t(360.93) = -0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.52) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(358.18) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.87)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.74) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(359.47) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.84)

sss

1st

t(270.24) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.04)

2st

t(348.65) = -0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.07)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(186.39) = 2.29, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(165.10) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(159.52) = 4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(167.63) = 1.80, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(163.18) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.46)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(160.92) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(171.49) = 3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(157.55) = -1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.21)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(162.15) = 1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(161.87) = 1.32, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.70)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(159.99) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(157.15) = 0.88, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(158.62) = 1.28, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(158.83) = 1.20, p = 0.463, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.88)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(163.78) = 3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.31)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(163.45) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.84)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(162.38) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(159.34) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(157.94) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.20)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(157.03) = -4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.45 to -1.54)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(156.86) = 1.99, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(160.37) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.52)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(156.90) = 2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(182.11) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(170.36) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(165.79) = 1.95, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(166.70) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.25)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(161.18) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(175.33) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(173.54) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(160.25) = -3.44, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(159.15) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.14)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(159.65) = -3.47, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(156.16) = -3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.53 to -1.28)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(180.71) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.33)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(162.19) = -0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(157.33) = 1.51, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.63)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(164.39) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(160.52) = 1.06, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(158.56) = 1.05, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(167.74) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(155.61) = -1.36, p = 0.349, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.47)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(159.62) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.05)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(159.38) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(157.75) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.06)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(155.26) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.95)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(156.55) = 1.33, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.62)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(156.73) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.12)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(161.05) = 1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(160.75) = -0.70, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.68 to 0.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(159.83) = 1.19, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(157.18) = 0.89, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.78)

els

1st vs 2st

t(155.96) = 1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.54)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(155.16) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.17)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(155.01) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.14)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(158.07) = 1.84, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.32)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(155.05) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.34)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(176.98) = -0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.23)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.76) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(162.79) = 2.21, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(163.58) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.41 to 3.02)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(158.77) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.66)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(171.09) = 0.98, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.82)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(169.53) = -1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.19)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(157.97) = -1.35, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(157.01) = -2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.29 to -0.09)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(157.44) = -1.74, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(154.40) = -2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.17 to -0.05)

Plot

Clinical significance